Denial of Reality

[Guest infoterror]

I.

 

Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing. These size differences, as well as others mentioned throughout the article, are relative: they refer to the overall volume of the structure relative to the overall volume of the brain.

 

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000363E3-1806-1264-9806 83414B7F0000

 

II.

 

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvard University will spend $50 million over the next decade to support initiatives on women scientists and faculty that were recommended Monday by two task forces formed in the wake of President Lawrence Summers' controversial comments on female aptitude in science and math.

 

Summers announced the creation of the two task forces -- one on women at Harvard, one on women in science more generally -- in February, at the height of the firestorm over his remarks that innate differences in ability may partly explain why fewer women reach top science jobs. Summers apologized repeatedly for his remarks, though many academics, alumni and students defended him.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/16/harvard.women.ap/index.html

[Pangloss]

If they'd found that the overall advantage was to men, I wonder if Scientific American would have published the article. That rag becomes more politically correct by the issue, and is getting to the point where I'm becoming embarassed to be a subscriber.

[husmusen]

Well given it's the brain, it's not going to be quite as clear cut,

there will be debating room due to complexity alone, and the fact

that individual variance makes such findings near useless.

 

But I can't see how it's all that different from saying men

as a whole are faster and stronger, and women are better at

breastfeeding.

 

I'll also hazard a guess that men are better at producing sperm than women

are , so where on campus do I report for my lynching.

 

Over in .au's Deaking university, the law faculty head just published

a paper defending the practice of torturing innocent people if the

goal was 'worth it'. Now that deserves a little flak.

 

But this, to put it bluntly I think these paricular feminists are having an

attack of the vapours poor dears.

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

Agreed.

 

That reminds me, I saw something recently on TV about how a company had come up with a new device that allowed the user to control a computer using their brain waves. The user could simply will the pointer to move, and it would do so. Even though it's not actually "mind reading", the Matrix-like implications of this are astounding.

[In My Memory]

Summers announced the creation of the two task forces -- one on women at Harvard, one on women in science more generally -- in February, at the height of the firestorm over his remarks that innate differences in ability may partly explain why fewer women reach top science jobs. Summers apologized repeatedly for his remarks, though many academics, alumni and students defended him.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/0...n.ap/index.html

Different biology, different abilities - nothing more should be said, so I think the negative reactions to Mr. Summers comments are bit hysterical.

 

The feminist movement is very admirable, but its really a shame the movement can be damaged so much by denying that there are actual biological differences between men and women.

[j_p]

Different biology' date=' different abilities - nothing more should be said, so I think the negative reactions to Mr. Summers comments are bit hysterical.

 

The feminist movement is very admirable, but its really a shame the movement can be damaged so much by denying that there [i']are[/i] actual biological differences between men and women.

Do a search on salaries surveys, particularly in the sciences. Find the section that breaks down salaries on gender lines. Then sit back and smugly assume that women are biologically less able to negotiate a salary.

 

What is this obsession with finding difference between men and women? Men and women are different; humans and trees are different; trees and rocks are different. Going out on a limb here, but I bet the bell curves overlap more between the first two than between the others.

 

Pardon me; I have to go help to my husband and son move a couch around a corner without someone opening a door into another dimension.

[In My Memory]

J_p,

 

Do a search on salaries surveys, particularly in the sciences. Find the section that breaks down salaries on gender lines. Then sit back and smugly assume that women are biologically less able to negotiate a salary.

No one in this thread said women were biologically less able to negotiate a salary, or even suggested it.

 

Re-read the portion I quoted from the opening post and my response to it, because I think you've missed some important context.

[Kylonicus]

I personally don't think that women are always worse at science, I do however believe that they are less obsessive.

 

I have Asperger's Syndrome, which has been typified as extreme maleness in brain characteristics(even with the women), and essentially we are by far, far more obsessive than most people. It's part of our diagnosis. Now being obsessive is a very BAD thing for social situations, however it does give you advantages at business, (i.e the workacholic businessman who eats breathes and sleeps business), at science(the scientist who neglects his social life and everything else so he can focus on his research), and at certain other occupations. This doesn't imply that women can't, it's just they aren't as obsessive as a group. They simply don't have the drive for only one thing or another, because they, unlike the super obsessive scientist or businessman, have lives. They have emotional relationships which mean a great, great deal to them. It's more important to keep and make friends while your here, and make memories with them, than it is to develop some new drug. They care more about raising children(which is a good thing, no children no society) than they do about research. They care more about people, than they do about things. They tend to care more about social issues(i.e women's rights, children's rights, rights of slaves ect...) than scientific ones. It's a matter of values. It's simply a matter of where your heart is. Also, since men tend to be more obsessive(or at least Aspies do), we generally tend to specialize more, which fits perfectly with evolution. Since we specialize more in one thing, by eat, breathing, and sleeping it(the engineers mind who never shuts off), and by our perception of the world, then we tend to be better at that one specialized area. Specialization breeds efficiency and tends to breed wealth.

 

This is just my opinion.